Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:29, 5 March 2010

This user is a native of Hong Kong.

This user is a citizen of the United Kingdom.

This user lives in France.

This user has been on Misplaced Pages for 19 years and 25 days.

Another styletip ... Formatting titles of literature and art Use italics for the titles of works of literature and art, such as books, pamphlets, films (including short films), television series, music albums, and paintings. The titles of articles, chapters, songs, television episodes, and other short works are not italicized; instead, they're enclosed in double quotation marks. Read more ... Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}}

User:Ohconfucius/Globes

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist. Please click here to leave me a new message.

New intro in FG-verse

I know you said that you wanted to distance yourself from the subject for a while, but I have just comprehensively re-written a new intro on Falun Gong. If you have a bit of time please just have one quick look to copyedit and proofread to make sure I have everything right. Thanks! Colipon+(Talk) 23:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I feel I really need to stay away for a while longer, if you don't mind. Ohconfucius 03:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

DAB links

Please avoid converting direct links (such as Kent County, Rhode Island) into links to disambiguation pages (such as Kent County). Instead, consider piping the link (as ]) to achieve the desired result without rendering the link less useful. Oddly, you're the second experienced editor this week to make this specific edit to the WLKW article. - Dravecky (talk) 14:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your note. It was my mistake, my eyes were blurred. ;-) You will have noticed that the other similar links I changed to ]. Ohconfucius 14:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Edna Parker and year links

I thought you and the others agreed to leave the status quo as-is until the discussion was decided?

Further, your "final warning" is very flawed and reflective of you, not me. I did NOT revert edits three times in a 24-hour period, so that is a false charge. Further, it is a conflict of interest for you to be both involved in the matter as a point of discussion AND also as a point of enforcing "penalties." In short, it's like trying to win a chess game by knocking the pieces off the board. Cyber-bullying and threats to block are NOT productive and NOT good arguments, either. Far from a WIKI-LAWYERING accusation, it seemed an acceptable and reasonable compromise to link the sentence in the Jiroemon Kimura article directly to the year 1897, rather than his year-of-birth/year-of-death listing at the top. However, it seems to me that you are more interested in "winning" than being fair, more interested in bullying than being reasonable. As such, I will take this matter to higher authorities.Ryoung122 22:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yea, you do that. I don't have any conflict of interest. I'm just interested in ensuring style guidelines are enforced - which is either obligatory or recommended practice. Ohconfucius 01:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• RYoung122's actions in this sorry mess have been deplorable. He edited against community consensus; he deleted guidelines because they didn't suit him (that's right RYoung122: why delete parts of the guideline if you really believed you were editing within them?); he reverted bot edits (bots that he knew full-well were sanctioned, and would only run if they arrose from community consensus); he warred over those edits; he accused people of canvassing, but did exactly the same thing; he shouted at people via his edits; he accused editors of cabal-like activity; etc. Please—bring on scrutiny of this atrocious episode.  HWV258.  03:17, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Signature

I hearby trout you for using a font similar to Comic Sans in your signature. That is all. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• Gosh! I didn't realise it was a troutable offence! I copied your shadow, but needed to differentiate in view of the shadow's increasing popularity with other editors. ;-) Ohconfucius 03:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Well, I suppose if you have an arguable reason for this offence I'll have to let it slide. Still, be careful in your search for individuality...you may find it slides even *further* away! ;D — Huntster (t @ c) 04:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • LOL Ohconfucius 04:13, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
    • The quest for individuality via a signature that is "different" is disturbing.  HWV258.  04:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Sure that what you do marks you out, but it doesn't stop corporations spending millions each year on logos and corporate imaging. Ohconfucius 04:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I was just having a shot at myself for spending so long to find a way to get the dot after my username to blink (although it doesn't blink in all browsers).  HWV258.  04:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
          • It's very subtle and easily missed. Ohconfucius 04:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
            • Unlike me.  HWV258.  04:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
            • Confucius, why are you talking to yourself? — Huntster (t @ c) 05:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
              • Must be my age. You can trout me once more if you catch me doing it again. ;-) Ohconfucius 05:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

SilkTork * 10:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Hello ! I have nominated this article : Hong Kong for FAR. Can you give your opinion here : Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Hong Kong/archive2. Thanks. Toutvientapoint (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Akmal Shaikh

Hi. I have put the GA Review on hold for seven days to allow time for the issues detailed on Talk:Akmal Shaikh/GA1 to be addressed. Any questions please get in touch. SilkTork * 12:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Your VOTE 2 vote at CDA

Hi Ohconfucius,

Firstly, apologies for this long message! I may need a response from you directly underneath it, per (3) below.

You are receiving this message as you voted in VOTE 2 at the recent Community de-Adminship 'Proposal Finalization' Poll. Unfortunately, there is a hitch regarding the "none" vote that can theoretically affect all votes.

1) Background of VOTE 2:

In a working example of CDA; ater the 'discussion and polling phase' is over, if the "rule of thumb" baseline percentage for Support votes has been reached, the bureaucrats can start to decide whether to desysop an admin, based in part on the evidence of the prior debate. This 'baseline' has now been slightly-adjusted to 65% (from 70%) per VOTE 1. VOTE 2 was asking if there is a ballpark area where the community consensus is so strong, that the bureaucrats should consider desysopping 'automatically'. This 'threshold' was set at 80%, and could change pending agreement on the VOTE 2 results.

This was VOTE 2;

Do you prefer a 'desysop threshold' of 80% or 90%, or having none at all?

As a "rule of thumb", the Bureaucrats will automatically de-sysop the Administrator standing under CDA if the percentage reaches this 'threshold'. Currently it is 80% (per proposal 5.4).

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

This is the VOTE 2 question without any ambiguity;

Do you prefer a "rule of thumb" 'auto-desysop' percentage of 80%, 90%, or "none"?

Where "none" means that there is no need for a point where the bureaucrats can automatically desysop.

Please vote "80" or "90", or "None", giving a second preference if you have one.

2) What was wrong with VOTE 2?

Since the poll, it has been suggested that ambiguity in the term "none at all" could have affected some of the votes. Consequently there has been no consensus over what percentage to settle on, or how to create a new compromise percentage. The poll results are summarised here.

3) HOW TO CLARIFY YOUR VOTE:

Directly below this querying message, please can you;

• Clarify what you meant if you voted "none".

• In cases where the question was genuinely misunderstood, change your initial vote if you wish to (please explain the ambiguity, and don't forget to leave a second choice if you have one).

• Please do nothing if you interpreted the question correctly (or just confirm this if you wish), as this query cannot be a new vote.

I realise that many of you clarified your meaning after your initial vote, but the only realistic way to move forward is to be as inclusive as possible in this vote query. I will copy any responses from this talk page and place them at CDA Summaries for analysis. Sorry for the inconvenience,

Matt Lewis (talk) 23:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Mail

Hi, I've just dropped you a mail. --JN466 23:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Attention needed

Hey Ohconfucius, could be you please have a look at the articles 50 Cent Party and Propaganda in the People's Republic of China which I think has severe NPOV problem. Thanks! --Defender of torch (talk) 07:24, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Ordinarily, I'd take on the invitation. However, I noticed that User:Dilip rajeev has been active at both of these. It is very possible, to my mind, that he may be at least partly responsible for the WP:NPOV issues. However, there is a long history of conflict between us, and any contact with him generates unnecessary stress for me. I'll see what I can do. Ohconfucius 01:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

a request

Some time ago you came across an article that you had questions about. Rather than pose those quetions on its talk page, or on the talk page(s) of the contributors who had worked on that article you nominated it for deletion.

You did not inform the contributor who started the article. So they did not have an opportunity to respond to your questions. While the deletion policies highly recommend nominators observe the courtesy of leaving a heads-up on talk page(s) of the individual who started or uploaded, and on those of other major contributors, it is not strictly required.

The way I see it we all have a limited store of good faith. I for one appreciate it when other contributors do observe the courtesies our policies recommend, as it avoids unnecessarily draining my limited store of good faith.

It was a long time ago -- maybe you do leave courtesy heads-ups on other contributor's talk page now. But, if you don't, is there any chance you would consider doing so in future?

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking on Miley Cyrus

I disagree with many of your removals, so I'm going to re-add a few of them (not all). For example, you removed all internal links to pop music. You removed the only link to Toronto. I'm fine with the more obvious ones, like certain instruments, etc. "Overlinking" can be defined as both "too many links in an article" and "more than one internal link". Let me know if you think I'm absolutely in the wrong. – Kerαunoςcopia_galaxies 01:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for your feedback. I note that you objected to 'many' of the links I removed, but you home in on two in particular. The article is already quite densely linked with many which are important and highly germane to the article. I felt that the links I removed were actually distractive. FYI, the links I removed were: Singer, actress, author, songwriter, musician, model, Vocals, guitar, piano, Toronto, Canada, English language, London, United States of America, Fox News, United Kingdom, Australia, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, The New York Times, YouTube, New York City. I felt that, in the context of this article, all of these terms are common, banal and/or not terribly germane to the subject, and where a reader would have little objection to doing a search for him/herself. In the highly unlikely event that a person arriving at the article would not know what the term 'pop music' meant, I suppose I would apologise and ask him/her kindly where he/she has been for the last half century. As for the link to Toronto, where her family lived only briefly, most would know where it was, thus I do not believe it is of any importance to the article. Ohconfucius 02:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, thanks for explaining your decision. I can see the Toronto explanation perfectly and I'll agree with you, especially in light of her not having really lived there. I do disagree with not linking pop music, though. Although it's not standard or required, there seems to be a consistency of keeping the genres listed in an album's infobox linked. It's not a matter of where the reader has been for the last half century, this is an unfair argument for anything. It's a matter of definition. I'll attest to the fact that there are so many genres, it's almost disgusting, but people love making them up to fit the latest trend. But even the larger, "blanket" genres should be easily accessible with a click of a button, and this is definitely an advantage to having an online encyclopedia. In this case, the genre is far more relevant to the artist and the article than many of the links you'd removed earlier. – Kerαunoςcopia_galaxies 02:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I understand where you are coming from, but I would add I would argue against linking rock music, but not the sub-genres, such as gothic, indie, punk, grunge...

  By the same token, link to Baroque pop, Bubblegum pop, Dance-pop , Electropop, Europop, Indie pop, Operatic pop, Power pop, Sophisti-pop, Space age pop, Sunshine pop, Teen pop, Country pop, Disco, Dream pop, Jangle pop, Pop punk, Pop rap, Pop rock, Psychedelic pop, Technopop, Urban pop, by all means, but I feel that Pop music is sufficiently wide to cover almost all known musical genres, and is utterly banal these days, so it makes little sense to link to it. Ohconfucius 03:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well, in addition to the definition of pop music, there's the history, and obviously these main genres have large articles devoted to them that should be connected with their respective music. Banality can't be helped. If the genre is listed, and in the Miley article, it's the only genre listed, probably precisely because it covers the whole gamut of her sub-genres, then it should be internally linked at least once. For specific songs' articles that are categorized into specific sub-genres, then I can see why pop shouldn't be linked or even listed—the sub-genre does it for you. –Kerαunoςcopia_galaxies 06:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Hobbit / LotR

These pages use British English with Oxford spelling and therefore prefer -ize to -ise. Thu (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well, you learn something new every day! I was taught British always spell '~ise' and not '~ize'. It's the Yanks who always use '~ize'. Ohconfucius 15:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
• Tell me, is the Oxford spelling 'honorable' or 'honourable'; 'favorable' or 'favourable'; 'amorous' or 'amourous'? Ohconfucius 15:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a paper dictionary to hand but my spelling checker reckons 'honourable', 'favourable' & 'amorous' (which look right to me). Thu (talk)

Ta! Ohconfucius 16:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Spelling in Diesel and wire

From a quick look, it appears that you have changed uniformly American spelling in the Diesel and wire articles to uniformly British spelling. This is contrary to WP:RETAIN. Can you explain your thinking? Thanks Ccrrccrr (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• I was not acting unilaterally, but based on the {{British English}} tags placed on the talk page of the articles concerned. The mixed spelling is quite common, so I thought nothing of it and just maade them uniform. Ohconfucius 00:45, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I hadn't noticed that tag. Nor had I noticed any "mixed spelling"--can you cite an example? It would seem to me that the tag was wrong--otherwise your edits would not have been needed. I'll ask the editor who added that tag. Ccrrccrr (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The tag on diesel engine was added by an anonymous user. A check of the spelling on that date shows more ize than ise. So it would seem that there's no basis for the tag. I'd revert both the tag and your edits, but that looks like a lot of work, since there were many other good edits mixed in, and it's not an issue of substance. Maybe I'll revert the tag and add a note. Ccrrccrr (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I checked an early version and it did in fact start in British. So that one should remain British.Ccrrccrr (talk) 16:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to investigate. Ohconfucius 16:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Svetlana Pankratova+He Pingping.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Svetlana Pankratova+He Pingping.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Misplaced Pages articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. +Angr 09:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

PRC Barnstar

We're getting a little confused about your barnstar, which you put on WP:*. We're currently discussing it in WT:WPWPA, so if you don't mind could you sort things out there? Thanks. Kayau Voting IS evil 13:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

RfC/User on PCPP

Hello. Please be aware that I have opened an RfC about the conduct of PCPP (talk · contribs).--Asdfg12345 01:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• You forgot to sign it. Ohconfucius 01:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks. --Asdfg12345 01:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal has begun

The RfC on the Community de-Adminship proposal was started on the 22nd Feb, and it runs for 28 days. Please note that the existing CDA proposal was (in the end) run as something of a working compromise, so CDA is still largely being floated as an idea.

Also note that, although the RfC is in 'poll format' (Support, Oppose, and Neutral, with Comments underneath), this RfC is still essentially a 'Request for Comment'. Currently, similar comments on CDA's value are being made under all three polls.

Whatever you vote, your vote is welcome!

Regards, Matt Lewis (talk) 10:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Ching Hai

Hello. You may be interested in taking a look at that page and assessing how it may be improved. I have already tampered with it slightly. Just in case you are interested in these Chinese religious groups. I don't believe there are any trolls hiding under the bridge over there. --TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 05:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)